The Crested Butte News Serving the Gunnison Valley since 1999
Library district to file response in December…makes similar argument to News
[ By Mark Reaman ]
The Colorado Court of Appeals received official briefs from the Crested Butte News and the Colorado Freedom of Information Coalition (CFOIC) on November 21 making the argument that Gunnison District Court judge Steven J. Patrick erred in ruling that a Colorado statute shields the identities of people who want certain books reclassified or removed altogether from library shelves because they are users of the library. The Gunnison County District Library has until later this month to respond to the briefs in the case Brookhart v Reaman (Library District executive director Drew Brookhart versus Crested Butte News editor Mark Reaman) and it plans to support the basic argument of the newspaper.
Working with the organization Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and attorney Rachael Johnson, the CB News is asking the court to allow the full disclosure of information submitted as part of a “Request for Reconsideration of Materials Form” to the Gunnison County Library, including the name of the person filing such a request.
The CB News has written several stories in the last year on requests from people asking that the library ban or relocate certain books (see related story on page 1), primarily books related to gender issues. The stories have involved filing a Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) request to gain access to information on the Requests for Reconsideration forms. The library district and executive director Drew Brookhart asked District Court Judge Steven Patrick for clarification over a state statute dealing with public records requests specific to library users. While the district court agreed that the documents should be made public and provided to the newspaper under CORA, Judge Patrick determined that personal information should not be included and identifying information should be redacted. Patrick concluded that under the state statue, a library user “is not limited to someone who reads materials in the library, or, checks out material, but is inclusive of any person “using” library services.”
The News is arguing that someone advocating for the banning or relocation of books is not a “user” of library services and that anonymity prevents transparency and accountability with business being conducted for a public entity. The argument states that the public deserves to know who is attempting to change library district policy and prevent patrons from accessing certain materials.
The CFOIC filed a “Friend of the Court” brief in the case and executive director Jeffrey Roberts wrote in an online article that, “Someone who fills out a form seeking to ban books they view as objectionable or controversial is not a ‘user’ of public library services under C.R.S. § 24-90-119,” which was enacted by the state legislature in 1983 to protect the privacy of library patrons, the briefs argue. “Nothing in the legislative history suggests that the sponsors and supporters of the bill believed that a library ‘user’ would include those who request the removal of library books and other materials,” wrote Johnson… “And the bill’s purpose belies any such interpretation.”
Roberts continued that the “CFOIC and Reaman are asking the Colorado Court of Appeals to reverse a May 16 ruling by Gunnison County District Court Judge J. Steven Patrick, who decided that “Request to Reconsider Materials” forms submitted to the Gunnison County Library District must be disclosed to Reaman under the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) but with requesters’ names and other identifying information redacted.
The news brief written by Johnson states that: “…unlike an individual’s personal reading choices, a person who seeks the removal of a certain book or other material from the Library District’s collection is attempting to remove access to it, for the entire community… As (a) nationwide effort to ban books hits communities like Gunnison County, residents have a compelling interest in knowing who is responsible, and how to use the democratic process to secure their right to unimpeded access to information in their public library.”
The Gunnison Library District has until December 26 to file a response with the state Court of Appeals to the brief submitted by the News. Library district executive director Drew Brookhart said the district is essentially in support of the argument being made at the Court of Appeals. “The library board does not believe requests to remove, move, or censor people’s access to information is a ‘use’ of the library. Therefore, a formal written request seeking to censor the public library’s collection would be a publicly available document and discoverable under the Colorado Open Records Act,” he said this week. “The submitted form would be available unredacted – that is complete without elimination of information identifying the submitter. The library board has publicly voted on that position and given their legal counsel direction to respond to the Crested Butte News’ brief in accordance with the board’s unanimous position.”
Ultimately the library district is governed by a public board,” Brookhart continued. “Transparency into policy requests that may influence the board are necessary for the healthy and reasonable operation of the public library. The public benefits when they know what people or groups are attempting to control the community’s access to knowledge.”
